Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott
Perhaps, but AFTER he wrote the ACC, the T206 set was separated out from other sets in what I consider to be a very logical manner, for the two reasons I gave above. I don't think this set was defined inconsistently with the way he defined others. If there are cases where that isn't true, it's probably due to information that he didn't have available.
|
Ok, I agree. Then that will beg the question why you called a T213-1 Coupon a T206 in a very recent thread?
I too think Burdick did a great job and think, after the aforementioned tries at redoing the ACC, we should leave well enough alone. Just my opinion on that. Also, for the record, in this day and age there is no way in heck anyone should have any difficulty with knowing, from lists on this board and other internet venues, what the backs, factories and districts are. I also think it is very healthy and fun to debate these issues.
